Earlier this month an Arab American civil rights group sued the Department of Homeland Security, seeking information to determine whether the government is disproportionately enforcing immigration laws against Arabs and Muslims. The September 11, 2001 attacks sparked a national debate about the morality and effectiveness of targeting particular racial groups in our counterterrorism efforts. Many of us asked, if all nineteen hijackers were Arabs, doesn’t it make sense to focus our resources on people from this part of the world? It sounded like a reasonable question, and five years later, race and religion have played a major role in directing a number of the policies we have implemented.

Perhaps there is a more innocuous way of describing this strategy. While very few Muslims are terrorists, if finding a terrorist is like trying to find a needle in a haystack, it serves us well to use any means necessary to reduce the size of the haystack. And since 9/11, a number of initiatives such as the Absconder Apprehension Initiative (AAI), the National Security Entry Exit Registration System (NSEERS), the Voluntary Interview Program, the NSA’s secret wiretapping program, the closure of special interest immigration proceedings, and the round-up and detention of Arabs and Muslims have indeed shrunk the haystack. But after five years of experience, we should again ask, does this approach make us safer?

In the name of national security, government and private sources have documented the disproportionate deportation of Arabs and Muslims. Although only two percent of unauthorized immigrants are from twenty-four Muslim nations, there was a 31.4 percent increase in deportation of this group in the years following 9/11. The rise among the other 98 percent of the unauthorized population? Just 3.4 percent.

Many of those that aren’t detained or deported are so afraid of being swept up in the dragnet that they have left the country. In New York City alone, between forty and fifty percent of the 120,000 Pakistanis residing in Brooklyn’s “Little Pakistan” before 9/11 have been detained, deported, or have departed voluntarily.

The government concedes, however, that the people we are deporting are not terrorists. This should hardly come as a surprise. Given today’s climate, when we find people we consider threats, we don't send them home. We lock them up. As the President stated recently, “They are in our custody so that they can’t kill our people.”

So who are we deporting? Twenty-four of the twenty-five countries from which non-citizens were asked to register have predominantly Muslim populations. Of those that complied, 13,000 were deported. None had terrorist ties. Did we really believe that hardened terrorists would voluntarily submit themselves to the INS for fingerprinting?

Just as the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II didn’t make us safer, neither does the deportation of individuals unconnected to terrorism. In fact, such policies alienate immigrant communities that can serve as valuable allies. It was, after all, the Muslim community in Britain whose tip foiled the alleged recent plot to blow up U.S.-bound transatlantic airliners. So shrinking the haystack may actually cost us valuable intelligence.

Mistreating visitors within our borders also reduces U.S. credibility worldwide, undermines relations necessary for cooperative intelligence gathering, and increases the likelihood that our own civilians and soldiers will be abused abroad.

While terrorism is the most serious threat the country faces, and regulating our borders is one of our most important security tools, we must carefully examine whether we are going after the right people – whether current policies actually make us more secure, or simply make us feel safer.

Targeting individuals based on race is not only wrong; it also creates a false sense of security. Given the increasingly sophisticated nature of terrorist networks, focusing scarce resources on people that have a certain look is less effective than going after people that behave a certain way. During the eighteen months the Absconder Apprehension Initiative targeted 6,000 men from predominantly Muslim countries, the total number of absconders actually grew from 300,000 to 400,000.

As we continue the fight against terrorism, we must take a smarter approach. Otherwise, we will fail to secure our country and run the risk of creating policies that produce another shameful chapter in American history.

I think on a probabilistic level, even if only half the terrorists were Muslims, it would make sense from an efficiency standpoint to focus on them, since $1 spent in that area would be 50 times as effective as a universally wide net (given a population of 6 million US Muslims to 300 non-.) In fact, the equation is probably in the "times ten to the..." range. If you oppose racial profiling, as I tend to, you should not make your case on the grounds that acknowledging these facts is stupid or racist. We should focus our case on fraternity and decency, and on the basis that adhering to an absolutely rigid equality is a very generous gesture. As to the point that "Mistreating visitors within our borders also reduces U.S. credibility worldwide," that actually undermines your argument, since we have a policy of treating all people like potential suicide bombers. On that score we might be better off confining ourselves to the only population that has produced them so far.

I'm not in favor of either profiling or torture, I just think that there are a few good non-racist non-stupid reasons for profiling (and nothing to recommend torture.)

Imagine if on Sept. 8, 2001 there was proof of an impending attack by 20 Arabs. Would it have been unreasonable to single out Arabs for scrutiny for a while? If the ratio of non-Arabs to Arabs is 50:1, there is an efficiency case for doing so. The distinction with respect to torture is that the harm of being searched is minute, and the alternative is to search everyone, as opposed to torturing everyone.

The benefits of a moral stand for absolute equality are huge and frankly inspiring, I would prefer the opponents of profiling would make that case rather than pretending a white Virginian is as likely as a Saudi to be a terrorist. We should say, "We are making a sacrifice, waiting in line and splurging on excessive searches, in order not to exclude and alienate a vulnerable minority."

It strikes me that the analogy between the Japanese internment of US citizens and legal residents during WWII, and concentrating efforts to deport people who are here illegally on a specific group, is awfully thin.

This isn't mistreatment, it's the way ALL people here illegally should be treated. And would be, if politicians weren't infuriatingly resistant to public opinion on this subject.

Given how woefully ineffective our border controls are at this time, it makes sense to concentrate the effort where it is most effective.

While it is true that very few Muslims are terrorists, all of the terrorists we are at war with are alien Muslims. Consequently, I am unconcerned about this effort being unfair or overbroad.

Furthermore, while it was unfair and probably unconstitutional to intern American citizens of Japanese descent who were accused of no wrongdoing during WWII, the folks we are deporting are illegal aliens who have no right to be here in the first instance. I would hope we would have done (or in fact did) the same thing with illegal aliens from Japan, Germany and Italy during WWII.

I would conclude by observing that, after these deportations, we have not been attacked in the United States by alien muslim terrorists as were were in the past. While this is not scientific proof of causation, it passes the common sense test.

I think on a probabilistic level, even if only half the terrorists were Muslims, it would make sense from an efficiency standpoint to focus on them, since $1 spent in that area would be 50 times as effective as a universally wide net (given a population of 6 million US Muslims to 300 non-.)

One problem with this is that the universe of "Muslim terrorists" is not limited to people in the US. The actual pool of "Muslim terrorists" is contained within the larger pool of "Muslims in the world". That pool is roughly 1.2 billion.

Another problem is that the category "Muslim" is a religion, not an identifiable physical feature. There's no easy way to know if someone is Muslim any more than there is to know that someone is Catholic rather than Protestant. What ends up happening is that ethnicity -- where you were born or live -- becomes a proxy for religion. That's what makes the process appear discriminatory.

i'm happy to know that bart is on the job on our collective behalf, and has conducted a full and comprehensive review of all known and potential terrorists who pose a threat, imminent or otherwise, to this country, and conclusively determined that every single one of them are "alien muslims".... or did he forget that of the two major terrorist events in this country in the past ten years or so, one was perpetrated by NON-MUSLIM AMERICAN CITIZENS, as in timothy mcveigh.

"we have not been attacked in the united states by alien muslim terrorists as we were in the past".

as far as we all know, there has been only one such attack in the entire history of this country by "alien muslims". if this is the proof of success in the strategy of singling out muslims, i would note that we are also being enormously successful in warding off attacks by alien italians, latvian dwarfs and miniature ponies.

the common sense approach is to focus on the behavior, not the ethnicity. i agree that on september 8, if we knew arabs were plotting to blow up the trade center with airplanes, we should have concentrated on such groups until the threat had passed; however, the way to do so would have been to screen all people coming in to airports as we do now, thereby catching the bad guys while not discriminating against anyone.

bart's post, once again, is proof of the danger of lumping together all persons of an ethnic category in one bunch and proclaiming that this is the bunch we are fighting.

While it is true that very few Muslims are terrorists, all of the terrorists we are at war with are alien Muslims. Consequently, I am unconcerned about this effort being unfair or overbroad.

While it's quite true that very few apples are sour green apples, all sour green apples are apples. Thus, treating all apples as sour green ones is hardly unfair or overbroad. You can never be too careful, you know. And if it takes breaking a few eggs to keep the "fairness" flowing, so be it. You may all send the tab for your portion of the $2M to "Bart" DePalma, Esq., esteemed DUI attorney for the Colorado Springs area (a lucrative locale, I'm sure), because he's more than happy to pay the price for his quite prudent "caution".

"Bart" can't resist that old "country lawyer" 'wisdom':

I would conclude by observing that, after these deportations, we have not been attacked in the United States by alien muslim terrorists as were were in the past. While this is not scientific proof of causation, it passes the common sense test.

It also passes this test (not to mention there's still no acceptable statistical evidence that there is indeed a significant "reduction" in terrorist attacks "in the United States", much less in the less cherry-picked realm of the Western world or even the entire planet, where "Bart"'s assumption is clearly not true).

Let's not forget that Bart in another thread acknowledged that there is no such thing as a war on terror. According to Bart this is a markering tool. So all the terrorists that we are NOT at war with ar muslims according to Bart.

In the end of course this type of profiling does come down to racial profiling is which Arab looking people will be targeted. It's not like you can be asked on a plane whether or not you are muslim and even if you would, it's not like you have to answer honestly.

There's no easy way to know if someone is Muslim any more than there is to know that someone is Catholic rather than Protestant. What ends up happening is that ethnicity -- where you were born or live -- becomes a proxy for religion. That's what makes the process appear discriminatory.

Exactly. This point was driven home to me when I lived in Peru, and everyone in the town assumed I was Mormon at first, as I came from the United States. If the Peruvian government were attacked by Mormon terrorists, I would've been among the first to be detained, no doubt. :)

phg, don't forget the first attempt to blow up the WTC in 1993. But overall, I agree, there simply aren't enough data points to talk about causality and efficacy in terms of preventing terrorist attacks. If it were a regularly occurring event, the third data point for a "muslim terrorist attack on US soil" would come in 2009.

Bart Depalma:"Furthermore, while it was unfair and probably unconstitutional to intern American citizens of Japanese descent who were accused of no wrongdoing during WWII"

This implies that there may be a constitutional basis for rounding up all members of an ethnic group and imprisoning them (or perhaps more generally using race as a basis for consideration). What might that constitutional basis be?

...did he forget that of the two major terrorist events in this country in the past ten years or so, one was perpetrated by NON-MUSLIM AMERICAN CITIZENS, as in timothy mcveigh.

I was speaking in the present tense. In any case, McVeigh was not a member of an group with which we were at war in the past and he is now dead.

BD: "we have not been attacked in the united states by alien muslim terrorists as we were in the past".

as far as we all know, there has been only one such attack in the entire history of this country by "alien muslims".

I can think of three off hand - WTC 1993, 9/11 and the car bomb en route from Canada to LA which we intercepted.

if this is the proof of success in the strategy of singling out muslims, i would note that we are also being enormously successful in warding off attacks by alien italians, latvian dwarfs and miniature ponies.

As soon as any of your straw men actually attack us, be sure to let me know.

the common sense approach is to focus on the behavior, not the ethnicity.

We are talking about where we should be focusing our efforts in deporting illegal aliens and whether focusing on persons from muslim countries where our enemy originates might be a place to start. I am not sure how behavior fits into this discussion.

bart's post, once again, is proof of the danger of lumping together all persons of an ethnic category in one bunch and proclaiming that this is the bunch we are fighting.

Exactly what ethnicity do you think that a person from a Muslim countries fits into? Muslim countries span a wide variety of ethnicities. This is not racial profiling.

Arne quoting Bart: While it is true that very few Muslims are terrorists, all of the terrorists we are at war with are alien Muslims. Consequently, I am unconcerned about this effort being unfair or overbroad.

One of my recurring themes is the difference between sound argumentation, which can be dry as dust and completely failing in persuasive power for the average citizen, and persuasive argumentation which looks and sounds like sound argumentation to the average person but which can be, and too often is, completely devoid of the elements of sound argumentation, to wit, true premises from which valid inferences are drawn. Bart, to give the Devil his due, is good at this latter pursuit, the use of causal connectors and other syntactic tricks which give the illusion of proof to otherwise unsound arguments. He's persuasive. Why else do you suppose we would be so consistently hooked by him. I say honestly and without rancor that I do not know if Bart is capable of distinguishing between persuasive argumentation and sound argumentation. But whether or not he is capable of such a distinction, I do know that his positions would not be well served by allowing of such a distinction. His "wins" can only happen when his opponent (or, to my way of thinking, his victim) accepts certain unvoiced and unproven premises as true and turns a blind eye to the rules of valid inference which apply even to untrue premises. But his command of rhetoric is such that he would be pretty damned effective with a shamefully large swath of the population.

As mentioned on another thread, Bart's motivation is not mine. He has a world view, he exhibits no desire to test that world view for its fit with reality. He engages in endless contest to promote his world view, hoping to persuade others to it. One might argue that this is an odd choice of venue for such a goal. He'd be better off going somewhere populated by folks looking for answers, rather than a spot like this where we all have more answers than we know what to do with. ;)

But this isn't just about Bart. For me he's the local example of a phenomenon I am trying to better understand and cope with. Today I would describe it as learning to spot when "debate" means zero sum game and when it doesn't. Bart, and many like him, only know zero sum games. Dialectic, another flavor of debate, is not a zero sum game. It tends to be a pursuit restricted to academia, much to all our detriment. But this is the blog of an academician, and I thus feel justified in choosing the non-zero sum version of debate in this venue.

Arne, you linked to a page on fallacy. In one of my other hats I've described the style of therapy I use with clients as Therapeutic Sophistries, which is to say, I know full well that such fallacies can be not only persuasive in a general sense, as when used by an attorney in court, but can be genuinely useful in some contexts, if only to free one from a pre-existing out-of-kilter world view.

I don't know that Bart has any practice with nor interest in the study of language, connotation, inference, logic, fallacies, &c other than in service of zero-sum games. And that's just fine. It means we'll always have someone to stimulate our conversations.

@PMSChicago: On a related note, your reply to Count Twist was so eloquent that nothing I added could do anything but detract, hence this "shout out" here rather than there. It's nice to feel like someone gets me, at least a little.

@Bart: I dropped by your web page yesterday and almost emailed you directly, but couldn't convince myself it would be welcome. So I repeat here my invitation to you to try to reduce the acrimony between us by talking privately, without an audience. You know how to find me. Or indicate that you won't object to me writing you. It's all good.

"The Haystack Terror Strategy," like the "One Percent Doctrine" is the flimsiest nonsense. Facts like, "During the eighteen months the Absconder Apprehension Initiative targeted 6,000 men from predominantly Muslim countries, the total number of absconders actually grew from 300,000 to 400,000." go a long way towards showing there's something terribly wrong in someone's thinking.

Let's not forget that Bart in another thread acknowledged that there is no such thing as a war on terror. According to Bart this is a markering tool. So all the terrorists that we are NOT at war with ar muslims according to Bart.

How exactly do you arrive at that syllogism?

I stated that the "War on Terror" was inaccurate because we are at war with an Islamic fascist movement, not against anyone who practices terrorism. Rather, it is a marketing tool because the US has been reluctant to admit that we are at war with a branch of Islam.

Bart Depalma:"Furthermore, while it was unfair and probably unconstitutional to intern American citizens of Japanese descent who were accused of no wrongdoing during WWII"

This implies that there may be a constitutional basis for rounding up all members of an ethnic group and imprisoning them (or perhaps more generally using race as a basis for consideration). What might that constitutional basis be?

I used the term "probably" because the US Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution different than I would have and found the detentions to be constitutional.

Most folks cite the Supreme Court on matters of constitutional law and not yours truly.

"The Haystack Terror Strategy," like the "One Percent Doctrine" is the flimsiest nonsense.

Risk analysis or cost effectiveness analysis is based on the basic comparison of the cost of an action multiplied by the efficacy of that action.

For example, the VP is alleged to have said that the results of a nuclear attack are so dire (millions of people dead or disabled and hundreds of billions of dollars in property damage) that if there is even one percent chance that a course of action will stop such an attack then we should pursue that course.

Let's put that thought into risk analysis terms.

If the risk of losing $200 billion dollars in property from a nuclear attack on NYC (I won't get into the quantification of 2-3 million human lives) is 1%, then the quantifiable risk is $2 billion dollars.

In comparison, the risk of losing maybe $10 million in property from a string of truck bombings on Wall Street is 5%, then the quantifiable risk there is $500,000.

You can then see why preventing even only a 1% threat of nuclear attack dwarfs all other priorities in the war with Islamic fascism.

Facts like, "During the eighteen months the Absconder Apprehension Initiative targeted 6,000 men from predominantly Muslim countries, the total number of absconders actually grew from 300,000 to 400,000." go a long way towards showing there's something terribly wrong in someone's thinking.

Apples and oranges.

The purpose of focusing our deportation efforts on illegal aliens from Muslim countries is to deport enemy agents, not to lower the overall number of illegal aliens. Deporting Juan from Mexico is not going to achieve the former goal. Based on the peace we have enjoyed domestically for the past five years, that focus appears to be bearing fruit.

Timon: The benefits of a moral stand for absolute equality are huge and frankly inspiring, I would prefer the opponents of profiling would make that case rather than pretending a white Virginian is as likely as a Saudi to be a terrorist. We should say, "We are making a sacrifice, waiting in line and splurging on excessive searches, in order not to exclude and alienate a vulnerable minority."

I think this is fairly well put. I think you are saying, even in your first post on this thread, that while there may be dollars-and-cents arguments for profiling and dollars-and-cents arguments against, that we would all be better served to cease privileging economic analysis where such clearly moral issues are concerned. What if "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" are not best served by viewing the world as a collection of users and utiles? Blasphemous question in the current cultural mix, but it seems to be one you are open to, Timon, and I think it's a question Ayres and Hussain would be sympathetic with.

The above notwithstanding, if there are analyses within the prevailing world view (i.e., users and utiles ala the Chicago school) then it might be prudent to develop those as well, don't you think? I'm not really sure if you shun such on general principles or more because current work along that line seems insufficient to the task.

Part of the problem with such analyses is that there are factors that are more difficult to predict than a simple equation can manage.

I'm thinking of a discussion I was recently involved in concerning the new electric sports cars. They look nice, accelerate wonderfully, and only cost a penny per mile to operate.

My economist friend pointed out that a fuel-efficient gas-powered car, being $35,000 cheaper than the electric car, is actually a better choice until gas prices triple or so. This is because the difference between the cost of operating a gas car and that of operating the electric is not sufficiently large to offset the additional cost of the electric vehicle.

Of course, that's when the environmentalists raise their hand and asks if that extra cash will offset the costs incurred by global warming. Similarly, I wonder what economic costs we might incur by obviously focusing our fear and loathing on one particular minority.

Bart: Risk analysis or cost effectiveness analysis is based on the basic comparison of the cost of an action multiplied by the efficacy of that action.

Since you have responded to the bottom of my post I think it fair to assume you read the rest. It is sad the last was the only part you found worth responding to.

Your lecture on cost analysis fails, mostly because it relies on an overly narrow definition of cost. I'm not inclined to engage you on that one, at least not before you convince me you know the difference between zero sum and non-zero sum games, or you come clean on your failure to find any text in the MCA which would let your folks prove your citizenship after you get, wrongfully, picked up as an AUEC. Thanks for confirming my misgivings about emailing you an olive branch.

I wonder what economic costs we might incur by obviously focusing our fear and loathing on one particular minority

To start, this has nothing to do with fear and loathing, it is simple common sense.

The enemy predominately originates in certain countries. If our purpose is to keep the enemy from attacking our country again, it only makes sense to concentrate our efforts in deporting illegal aliens toward aliens originating from those countries.

We are not harassing innocent people here. Rather, we are focusing our efforts against illegal aliens where they will do the most good.

If you can show me actual and not speculative costs of deporting illegal aliens from Muslim countries, I am more than willing to consider your arguments. However, I have yet to see any such costs.

Timon: The benefits of a moral stand for absolute equality are huge and frankly inspiring, I would prefer the opponents of profiling would make that case rather than pretending a white Virginian is as likely as a Saudi to be a terrorist. We should say, "We are making a sacrifice, waiting in line and splurging on excessive searches, in order not to exclude and alienate a vulnerable minority.

If I am not mistaken, the issue presented is whether we should deploy our border control resources equally against all illegal aliens or instead focus more resources against illegal aliens from Muslim countries.

Therefore, I am having a hard time with the analogy between focusing border control resources to situations where the public at large is being searched to enter a building or a common carrier.

In the latter case, we dealing with population usually made up entirely of innocent people and profiling raises competing arguments between efficiency and fairness.

However, in the former case, the entire population we are deploying border control resources against are guilty of violating our immigration laws. Therefore, there is no issue of fairness arising from inconveniencing one group of criminals more than another.

It is common law enforcement practice to concentrate resources against the criminals who pose the greatest danger to society. Given that Islamic terrorism is a far greater threat to our society than an illegal working on a construction site, it is simply common sense and not at all unfair or immoral to concentrate on deporting those illegal aliens who come from Muslim countries.

We are not harassing innocent people here. Rather, we are focusing our efforts against illegal aliens where they will do the most good.

1. Not all of the people who were deported were here illegally.

2. Not all of the people who were detained were here illegally.

3. Detainment and deportation is, at the very least, harassment.

As for numbers, if you can pull a speculative $200 billion price tag for nuking NYC out of your ass, I can make a general statement about the potential for economic blowback without setting down firmly researched numbers. As it goes, though, I believe we have already spent much more than $200 billion in the supposed struggle to keep that 1% event from happening.

As for numbers, if you can pull a speculative $200 billion price tag for nuking NYC out of your ass, I can make a general statement about the potential for economic blowback without setting down firmly researched numbers. As it goes, though, I believe we have already spent much more than $200 billion in the supposed struggle to keep that 1% event from happening.

Which makes the break-even point $20 trillion in potential terrorist damage. But "Bart"'s little imaginary scenario is filled with additional hidden assumptions (such as the assumption that the proposed preventative action is 100% effective). But by far the worst flaw to his "logic" is the fallacy of bifurcation: The assumption that only two choices are presented. In real life and in any complicated situation, there are many choices possible of various levels of efficacy in dealing with any particular situation. Even if "Bart" was correct on his damage assessments for a successful nuclear attack, and the probability of such an attack absent any efforts at prevention ($200B at a probability of 1%), if his preventative measures cost less than $2B, it might be a bargain compared to doing nothing. But those aren't the only options. If it cost $1B, for instance, to inspect ports and screen cargo, and this was as effective as waging war on third parties and occupying a country, that would still be a better bargain than both "Bart"'s preferred 'solution' and the option of doing nothing. Elemental logical fallacy. Which is why "Bart" uses this fallacy so often, I suppose.

Arne: But by far the worst flaw to his "logic" is the fallacy of bifurcation...Elemental logical fallacy. Which is why "Bart" uses this fallacy so often, I suppose.

Arne, to give the Devil his due, the reason Bart or anyone uses this fallacy so often is it works. Most folks just don't have the intellectual depth to dig that the law of the excluded middle has a very narrow scope of application, and rhetorically excluding all but one's target and some mutually unacceptable alternative works most of the time with most of the people, especially in the current culture of "science worship" where threadbare vestments of logic cause most minds to genuflect. Bart may or may not know what he's doing, but either way he's just following in the footsteps of the greats, on both sides of the political fence. False bifurcation works. We like to think the rise of the web will make it work a little less often as more folks see exchanges like this and develop the habit of asking if a matter is truly as black and white as some would paint it. Most of my life isn't black and white, nor even shades of grey, but, rather, full sparkling Technicolor. Bart's too, I suspect, however much his effective rhetoric may belie it.

As for numbers, if you can pull a speculative $200 billion price tag for nuking NYC out of your ass, I can make a general statement about the potential for economic blowback without setting down firmly researched numbers.

Obviously, I was using a hypothetical number to illustrate the concept of risk analysis.

I would hazard a guess that a nuclear explosion in NYC which destroyed or made unusable the vast majority of the city and took down what is essentially the world's financial center would cause direct and indirect economic damage in the trillions of dollars. The loss in infrastructure in NYC would easily get into the hundreds of billions. The loss in GDP would be much higher and could continue for years. We produce over 13 trillion in GDP per year. If such an attack plunged us into a serious recession or a depression, we could easily shave off a trillion of that GDP per year until we managed to rebuild our economy

[PMS_Chicago]: As for numbers, if you can pull a speculative $200 billion price tag for nuking NYC out of your ass, I can make a general statement about the potential for economic blowback without setting down firmly researched numbers.

Obviously, I was using a hypothetical number to illustrate the concept of risk analysis.

I would hazard a guess that a nuclear explosion in NYC which destroyed or made unusable the vast majority of the city and took down what is essentially the world's financial center would cause direct and indirect economic damage in the trillions of dollars. The loss in infrastructure in NYC would easily get into the hundreds of billions. The loss in GDP would be much higher and could continue for years. We produce over 13 trillion in GDP per year. If such an attack plunged us into a serious recession or a depression, we could easily shave off a trillion of that GDP per year until we managed to rebuild our economy.

And if pigs could fly, we'd all carry cast-iron umbrellas.

"Bart" continues to ignore that he's been called on his "fallacy of bifurcation"/"fallacy of the excluded middle"/"false dichotomy". And continues to ignore the fact that his numbers were made up out of moonbeams and pixie duxt, and -- being, as he calls them, "mypothetical" -- not even worth any continued discussion. Far better minds here know a lot more about CBA than he does, but he pretends to "lecture" us yet again.

Typical "Bart". He's not here for any serious discussion. He'll continue to spout his nonsense as if no one had said anything in reply.

Ooo Snap: "Repeatedly in itsresponse, the government bemoans that Mr. Padilla has failed to cite any precedential authorityfor his application. There is a logical explanation for this failing: the government’s brutaltreatment of Mr. Padilla is without precedent."

Not only does this motion answers all the government's arguments, it shows them as petty thieves as well: gross misquotation of precedent, gross picking and choosing and overall outrageous goverment conduct.